HOW HE SEES IT Clarke propels voters' skepticism

By JAMES P. PINKERTON
LONG ISLAND NEWSDAY
Let's stipulate that Richard Clarke has suffered some heavy hits in the past week.
But let's also note that the damage done to the former anti-terrorism czar pales next to the damage done to his ex-boss. Clarke will soon ease into think-tank obscurity; by contrast, George W. Bush will have to take his pre-emptive Iraq war doctrine before increasingly skeptical voters in 31 weeks.
Critics have seized upon contradictions between what Clarke said when he was working for the White House and what he says now. "Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, contrasting the ex-White House aide's testimony last week with testimony two years ago.
And on "Fox News Sunday," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed to have caught Clarke in a serious memory error. Recalling the events of 2001, Rumsfeld jibed, "He quotes me on September 4 as saying some things in a meeting that I didn't attend."
To be sure, Clarke is getting praise from some of his old colleagues. Secretary of State Colin Powell said last week that the ex-anti-terrorist had "served his nation very, very well," adding, "The book is the book, and you can read it and make your own judgment as to whether it's accurate." Yet soon thereafter, Powell got more On Message. The next day, he accused Clarke of "inconsistencies."
As a result of these charges, Clarke's reputation has been blemished. A new poll from Newsweek finds that just 25 percent of Americans regard Clarke as a "selfless public servant," while 50 percent suspect that he is motivated by a "personal or political agenda."
However, the bureaucrat-turned-best-selling-author will not be on any ballot this November -- and Bush will be. The 43rd president must not only defend his anti-terror record, but must also seek a renewed mandate for four more years of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive striking and Middle East nation-building.
Basic argument
Yet whether or not one believes every element of Clarke's account, his basic argument -- that the War on Terror and the War on Iraq were two different things -- is now big on the table. And that has vast implications for the future of U.S. policy.
To put it bluntly, voters will wonder whether Bush would once again make short shrift of the battle against Al-Qaida to push a further grandiose "transformation" of the Muslim world. Would an "Operation Iranian Freedom," say, be the centerpiece of a second term?
Detractors have noted that Clarke didn't offer any criticism of the Iraq war in his 15 hours of private testimony to the 9/11 commission prior to his public appearance last Wednesday. But as he said in his televised testimony, he wasn't asked. And that's what is so revealing: Even the Republican investigators on the 9/11 commission, closely questioning Clarke, never even thought to ask about Iraq. That's how separate "terror" and "Iraq" are in the minds of Washington insiders.
So Clarke merely connected a few more dots in what was already a pointillist portrait of the administration's switcheroo after 9/11, in which war against Osama bin Laden changed into war against Saddam Hussein. As Clarke said on "Meet the Press" last Sunday, "We diverted resources from Afghanistan for the war on Iraq." Indeed, only now are Arabic-speaking Special Forces going back to Afghanistan to look for bin Laden.
But Clarke went further. He told NBC's Tim Russert that his ultimate message is "about how going into Iraq hurt the war on terror." As he has argued, the diversion into Iraq not only gave bin Laden a breather, but allowed Al-Qaida to recruit and spread its tentacles further -- into places such as Madrid, Spain. Meanwhile, 130,000 Americans are bogged down in Iraq, fighting innumerable "terrorists" who didn't have any U.S. targets in their crosshairs until Uncle Sam came calling.
So yes, Clarke has taken hits. But the same Newsweek poll shows that 44 percent approve of Bush's handling of the Iraq war, whereas 50 percent disapprove. And that's Bush's problem this November.
Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service